Box Middle

Box Right

Democrats in Colorado are having an increasing difficult time appeasing the far left wing of their party. At every turn, environmental activists seem to be thwart Democrat attempts to appear moderate or reasonable.

Now, it appears that Congressman Jared Polis is the latest liberal to find a target on his back. The Sierra Club recently took out a large-scale ad campaign attempting to pressure Polis into opposing a trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, saying it could worsen climate change.

According to The Denver Post, Polis is “the only member of Congress that the California-based group is has singled out for the campaign,” which is pretty interesting considering he’s not the only Democrat inclined to support the trade deal.

Obviously, leftist special interests think that bullying Colorado Democrats into supporting their radical agenda is an effective strategy. First Bennet and Hick, now Polis. Our question is who’s next?

The Washington Post opened a can of worms when its fact checker took on claims by Secretary of State John Kerry that he held the pivotal congressional hearing on climate change with former Colorado Sen. Tim Wirth and the godfather of global warming, Al Gore.

The Post gave “four Pinocchios” to Kerry for making the repeated claim the trio organized the June 23, 1988 Senate hearing when activist professor James Hansen proclaimed that pollution had caused global warming.

The Post nailed Kerry for some falsehoods, and we spotted several unchallenged but demonstrably tall tales added by Wirth.

First off, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-La.) was the committee chairman, neither Gore Nor Kerry were even on the committee. However, Wirth was there and did pull some presiding duty during the day.

The story has taken on a life of its own over the years with Wirth also credited for creating climate theatrics for the hearing.

The Post found this transcript of a 2007 PBS Frontline interview with Wirth:

Believe it or not, we called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6 or June 9 or whatever it was, so we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo: It was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it. It was stiflingly hot that summer. [At] the same time you had this drought all across the country, so the linkage between the Hansen hearing and the drought became very intense.

It turns out, even the suggestion of stage-managing the event was contrived by Wirth, and Kerry who repeated the story.

If they had checked with the “weather bureau” like we did, they would have learned that July and August are the hottest months in Washington. Technically, “June 6 or June 9” is NOT EVEN SUMMER.

Wirth was correct that it was a scorcher of 98 degrees on June 23, 1988 when the hearing was held, but not even close to record setting. That would be in 1918 and 1930, long before global warming became a thing, when temps hit 106 degrees.

The record heat for 1988 was 102 degrees – in July and August. That’s why Congress always takes their SUMMER RECESS in August during the hottest time of the year in DC.

Even the interns know this. Wirth’s exaggeration was just plain sloppy.

As for the windows being opened in the hearing room to set the stage, we checked with our DC peeps who agreed the enormous picture windows probably don’t even open.

And they pointed to statements given to the Post by Daryl Owen, who was the Democratic staff director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the time as the undisputed expert on the matter.

“You may have been more successful in unearthing the archives than have I, but I can say with certainty that it was we who chose the hearing date, as that was the protocol of the committee,” Owen wrote. “Thus, the notion that it was chosen to coincide with a warm day in Washington is fiction, as is the notion that the hearing room windows were left open to warm the room. In fact, I’ll have to check but I’m not even sure those windows can be opened.”

He added: “If you’ve ever seen the Chairman perspire, it would have been career ending to open the windows on a hot day for a hearing he was to attend.”

Some may judge us petty for checking, but we see it as just more exaggerated claims built upon exaggerated claims.

As the Post said:

For skeptics of climate change, the story has become an example of how left-leaning politicians have manipulated public perceptions on the issue.

EPA Chief Gina McCarthy has deliciously contradicted claims by envirowhacktivists that the Keystone pipeline would wreak havoc on the climate and spell doomsday for the planet.

This is what League of Conservation Voters VP Tiernan Sittenfeld said in a statement last month:

“The EPA’s comments confirm that Keystone XL fails the President’s climate test. From the risk of spills to a dramatic increase in greenhouse emissions, it’s clear that tar sands oil should stay in the ground. President Obama has all the information he needs to reject Keystone XL, and today’s comments from EPA make us more confident than ever that he will continue to build on his incredible climate leadership by rejecting this dirty and dangerous pipeline once and for all.”

Turns out that’s NOT AT ALL what the EPA has to say on the subject, according to Politico:

“EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Monday that building the Keystone XL oil pipeline alone would not be a disaster for the climate, as some opponents of the project have alleged.

“No, I don’t think that any one issue is a disaster for the climate, nor do I think there is one solution for the climate change challenge that we have,” McCarthy said during an interview with POLITICO’s Mike Allen.

Keystone critics have long alleged that the pipeline, if approved, would greatly exacerbate climate change. EPA has raised concerns about Keystone’s climate impact. In comments to the State Department released in February, the agency said State should give “additional weight” to whether the sharp drop in oil prices would increase the pipeline’s environmental impact and stimulate production in the carbon-rich Canadian oil sands.

It’s rare to see a Democratic administration disagree so sharply with their green base. We’re just going to sit back and savor the moment.

Last week, the Colorado State House heard in committee a bill that would have saddled Colorado schools with steep fines for using Native Americans’ tribe names as mascots without tribes’ permission. As part of that hearing, Democratic Reps. Joe Salazar and Jovan Melton offered a slide show of racially-insensitive names for minority groups, including the N-word. Here’s how The Statesman described the spectacle:

Monday’s hearing before the House Education Committee started with a presentation from the bill’s sponsors that caused an uproar. The sponsors, Reps. Joe Salazar, D-Thornton and Jovan Melton, D-Aurora, began with a slideshow loop that showed caricatures for African-Americans, Chinese, Jews and Hispanics, along with racially-offensive language, including the “N” word.

That got the immediate attention of Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, who asked that the slideshow stop. “I have a hard time seeing the ‘N’ word up there,” Fields told the sponsors. “I’m highly offended by it, by those terms…Your point has been made.” Both Melton and Salazar said they also were offended by the words and images, but that this was the point. Fields left the hearing and didn’t return for two hours.

Can you imagine if Republicans offered such a presentation – even in the name of cleansing the names from our vernacular? It would be the lead story on MSNBC (that’s still around right?) for days. It would have been the talk on Sunday morning’s “Meet the Press”. Its authors would have been rebuked by The Denver Post and on the floor of the House. It would have been a disaster.

Yet, the silence is deafening.

Why do Democrats get a free pass for disseminating racially inappropriate items? To be clear, we do not condone racial slurs at all, but it is important to point out the glaring double standard in this instance. Lest readers think we’re being political, remember that Rep. Fields also found the presentation distasteful. We hope that legislators in the future have more common sense than to glorify the use of these words and names in official proceedings – or anywhere else, frankly.

House Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst tells the Colorado Statesman she had a good reason for condemning a crucial water-rights bill to the kill committee for it to die a thousand deaths.

Several bizarre and conflicting reasons, but this one sent our forehead slamming in the keyboard, repeatedly.

“It’s not our job to protect those water rights,” Hullinghorst said.

You read that correctly, Hullinghorst says it is not the Colorado General Assembly’s responsibility to protect our most precious resource from federal water grabs, like the pending plan to assert control over groundwater on lands adjacent to national forests.

The legislation sponsored by Republican Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling is a third-year effort to block these blackmail schemes, like the government demanding water rights from ski resorts if they want to continue leasing national forest lands.

Even though she has supported the bill in previous years, Hullinghorst said she sent the measure to the State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee “because she wanted to see the issue addressed more broadly, and that she believed State Affairs was the appropriate committee.”

She also said the bill was unconstitutional.

Then came the ultimate surrender:

As to how the General Assembly can protect the water rights of those affected by the directive, Hullinghorst said “it’s not our job to protect those water rights. It’s a matter for the courts and it will be well-handled there.”

U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner doesn’t believe it’s a job for the courts, and neither does the U.S. Senate, which passed legislation last week on a 59-41 vote that recognizes Colorado’s long-standing authority to manage water according to state law and protects against federal takeovers.

Sonnenberg was furious at the stunt pulled by Hullinghorst, as are we.

He told The Colorado Statesman last week that it was just politics. “I don’t get it,” he said. “It’s politics at its worst, when we don’t defend Colorado water rights owners.”

Bennet’s latest pander was an amendment he introduced last week that effectively declared climate change to be a national security issue. While this might mollify the environmental extremists who comprise a meaningful spot among Democrat special interest groups, foolish analogies like these are not going to sit well with the broad middle ground of voters who decide elections in Colorado.

But, let’s be clear. It’s nearly impossible to win statewide if your base is at just 53%.

It looks like Bennet’s vote on the Keystone Pipeline has backed him into a corner of sorts. While a vote against American energy would have caused moderates in the state to take pause, and would have certainly provided his opponent with an never ending message point for media buys and direct mail, it has obviously caused a fissure in the Democrat base that is going to take some time to get over. It may also take some more absurd legislative proposals as well. Whether this is a vicious cycle or virtuous cycle all depends on your view.

But, could environmental extremism be the Mark Uterus of the 2016 election? Please say yes.

This morning’s announcement that Democratic Sen. Harry Reid would not seek re-election may have pleased many Democrats, many Democrats not named Michael Bennet, that is. Reid, a visible representation of failed Democratic policies likely saw the writing on the wall and some argue, despite Reid being an incumbent, Democrats now have a better shot at keeping the Senate seat in Nevada. But, Reid’s departure also makes Bennet’s defeat the top hunting trophy of 2016 for a cadre of wealthy donors. The black rhinoceros of the 2016 election, perhaps?

“With Reid’s retirement, the only Democratic incumbent running in 2016 in any danger of losing is Michael Bennet. Bennet, like Reid, won an unlikely victory in 2010 — a year that was disastrous for Democrats nationally. Bennet will, once again, be a major target but it’s not at all clear yet who Republicans will field as their candidate.”

Before Reid announced his decision, he was the top target for Republicans who want to keep the U.S. Senate. Now, Bennet is front and center, and for good reason. The Washington Post noted later in the article that Bennet won in 2010, a wave year for Republicans nationally, as if that was some accomplishment. But, remember, it was a trainwreck of a year for Republicans in Colorado. Our top of the ticket was so weak, some were concerned that the Republican Party would lose its major party status here.

It was a depressing time to be a Republican in Colorado.

Yet, Michael Bennet only won in 2010 by .9% of the vote or fewer than 30,000 votes. Even after Ken Buck ended his campaign on a low note (see: Meet the Press), Bennet only won by .9%. To put it in context, that year, Democratic Governor Hickenlooper beat Dan Maes (really, a truly terrible candidate, sorry) by nearly 40 points and better-known former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo by 13.9%.

And, Michael Bennet is no John Hickenlooper. There’s no goofy “aw shucks” facade or even craggy good looks like former Sen. Udall, which is probably why Sen. Mumbles’ polling is in the tank. Bennet had better hope he can fail up to a Vice President slot, otherwise he, too, might be out of a job come November 2016.

As he can always be relied upon to do, Congressman Mike Coffman once again yesterday was a voice for the interests of millions of veterans – and, frankly, millions of taxpayers – in what has become a a series of embarrassing and expensive debacles at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In the latest chapter of mismanagement at VA, Glenn Haggstrom stepped down on Wednesday. Haggstrom, as the executive director in the Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, was responsible for construction projects with more than $2 billion in cost overruns. A VA press release published on Wednesday stated that Haggstrom “retired…in the midst of an investigation initiated by VA.”

It should be noted that the term “retire” means that Haggstrom is leaving VA on his own terms and with a lifetime pension, according to Rep. Jeff Miller (R-FL), who chairs the House Veterans Affairs Committee. That is on top of the more than $64,000 in bonuses that Haggstrom received while overseeing infamous VA construction projects debacles in Colorado, Florida, and Louisiana.

Since the VA is giving bonuses to people who should have been fired a long time ago, Congressman Mike Coffman introduced a bill to strip the VA of funding for all of its bonuses this year – an astonishing $360 million. Coffman also wants that money put towards the completion of the VA hospitals that the agency has mismanaged, and for all future VA bonuses to be allocated for that purpose until the projects are completed.

While the VA is one of the most disastrously-run agencies in the Obama Administration, and no one there deserves a bonus until its leadership gets its house in order, it may be wise to take a look into bonuses paid out to other bureaucrats. Many taxpayers don’t believe that we should be paying bonuses to our public servants on top of their already outsized salaries, benefit packages, defined benefit retirement plans, and steel-trap job security.

The federal government backed off its endangered species threat a few years ago to list a couple of flowering plants that just so happen to grow over oil shale deposits.

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) relented partly because the plants weren’t as rare as originally thought, mostly because Colorado and Utah banded together to prevent the bureaucratic kiss-of-death by sacrificing 44,000 acres as a safe haven for the pretty little buds.

Check out the ranching and energy sector livelihoods that were threatened with extinction by the proposed listing of Graham’s and White River beardtongues.

The plants “live almost exclusively in areas targeted for unconventional oil shale and tar sands mining and traditional oil and gas drilling. Energy development, along with livestock grazing and trampling, small population size, invasive weeds, and climate change, threaten the beardtongues with extinction.

Not just public lands either, but private land. So you can see why state and local stakeholders bellied up the bar quickly to strike a preservation deal.

But environmentalists don’t want preservation, they want to kill ranching and energy development, so they filed a lawsuit Thursday to undo the deal.

“The Endangered Species Act requires the Service to make decisions based on science, not politics,” said Megan Mueller, senior biologist with Rocky Mountain Wild, one of the groups behind the suit. “The science here is clear, these wildflowers must be protected from strip mining and drilling.”

But here’s what caught our attention in the lawsuit:

“The Court held that FWS failed to consider the best available science on threats and improperly relied on speculative, future conservation measures to protect the beardtongue.”

Well then, we certainly understand why enviros would not want to rely on speculative, future conservation measures to protect a species, when they have the Endangered Species Act that relies on speculative, future conservation measures to kill jobs in the name of species protection.

A crew of protesters from 350 Action spoiled the kick off for Michael Bennet’s 2016 Senate campaign with a protest.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet introduced with zero fanfare and scant public attention this week an anti-fracking measure that is purely $ymbolic with no teeth for enforcement.

The resolution essentially says Congress would support the disclosure of chemicals used in fracking, a regulation the Obama administration has already forced down the throats of the industry.

The amendment received a mere ripple of attention in Washington, worthy of only a mention in Politico’s afternoon energy email.

“Bennet’s amendment may not get a vote before the budget so-called vote-a-rama draws to a close, likely sometime after the witching hour Friday, but the proposal could linger in industry minds as he gears up for a reelection run in 2016.”

We’re surprised the legislative language didn’t contain an apology letter along the lines of this:

Dear fractivists,

Please stop being mad at me for supporting the Keystone pipeline, and if you could stop protesting at my fundraisers, that would be great.

Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Follow Colorado Peak Politics

Featured Articles

We know December can be a crazy month, but it looks like former Senate President Morgan Carroll may just be in hiding. Our sources tell us that she’s cancelled three or four of her recent townhalls. We see at least two on her website (see pic). We would think that after the shellacking her party ... ∞

In an interview with Colorado Public Radio, Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper bemoaned the idea that the State of Colorado would have to refund tax dollars to taxpayers as part of the Colorado constitution. From the article: “Hickenlooper says [giving funds back to taxpayers] will mean the state may have to cut some essential services. As ... ∞

What should be the first clue that Sen. Michael Bennet isn’t really one of us? Is it his elitist background? His East Coast childhood? His establishment brother? Or, the fact that Bennet doesn’t even really live in Colorado anymore? Well if you’re The Aurora Sentinel’s local gossiper, you can’t help but call Bennet out on the ... ∞

To say that Oil and Gas Task Force Co-Chair Gwen Lachelt is driving the agenda of the oil and gas task force meetings is an understatement. From our exclusive report showing Lachelt’s frustration with the outpouring of support for the oil and gas industry at the first meeting to rumors of her hand-picking public commentary, it ... ∞

UPDATE: Rep. Dan Nordberg, the author of last year’s audit bill, had this to say in a statement: “With only a limited performance audit, the state auditor found Connect for Health Colorado committed numerous federal law violations, and nearly 40 percent of sampled contracts had problems totaling more than $32 million dollars. “Sadly, I am not ... ∞